Measure A — love it or hate it or be apathetic to it as I think most people are — it certainly does bring out a viseceral reaction in people. While I thought that my post that focused on blight was perfectly clear, apparently it was not.
So let me break it down for those who are confused by the progression of the conversation, or even by the initial post itself. The post starts with a referenceto John Oldham’s buried comment which I thought brought up a good point about two distinct issues that happened to be combined into one comment: (1) Measure A and (2) blight.
First I talked about that if one of the purposes — and these are not the stated purposes of chartered language of Measure A, but rather the secondary purposes that are generally attributed to Measure A — was to make sure that Alameda prevented ugly “Soviet block style housing” from being built again, perhaps tools like form based codes/zoning would provide more flexibility to our community. There are many other purposes that are attributed to Measure A, even though not specifically stated in the charter language, but that is another post for another day.
The next issue, that of blight, was a change of topic from Measure A, which is why I used the wording:
I also think that John O. has hit on a very salient point, that blight is a big problem in the community… [emphasis added]
And proceded to describe a whole different, non-Measure A related example of the Historic Advisory Board. As folks will notice the words “Measure A” did not appear once in my discussion of preservation of old or “historic” homes and at what point and at what cost do we expect property owners to preserve buildings that have been determined to be “historic.” And by the way, even though I said I thought the house was on Santa Clara (big, rundown, etc…) it was actually on Central and is the building that John O. had taken photos of.
As mentioned by Edmundo Delmundo, there is nothing in the Measure A language that would prevent the wholesale demolition of historic (or even non historic homes) in Alameda. And I know that I wasn’t suggesting that it did or that John O. was suggesting that it did. The discussion first circled around one of the secondary purposes generally attributed to Measure A (which I should really find a nifty acronym for) which was the preservation of housing stock, which Measure A did, not directly, but indirectly by, as pointed out by Edmundo D. taking away the financial incentive to bulldoze buildings.
The issue of blight was another topic, which John O. found to be more important that the notion of protecting the exisiting housing stock.
So to sum up. The initial comment and my own post was about two separate issues: (1) Measure A and the secondary purposes generally attributed to it and (2) blight. Now folks can say, “well, that’s not how I read it” or “that’s not what it sounded like.” Which is a fair statement, after all our perceptions are our own perceptions. So the folks who questioned whether the post was an intentional conflation of blight and Measure A can either accept it or they can dismiss it.
I will take partial blame for the confusion. However, LD you do have a knack for bringing out tons of comments.
I thought the original question was something along the lines of “what does Measure A say about…” I’ll have to go back and re-read.
Buried in my original comment to your post was my big fear about the use of an Historical Board to set policy and the types of tools they might use to guide their decisions – namely, one man’s blight is another man’s castle.
I don’t think there is enough trust in our City institutions to give them that much control. We already see the backlash against homeowners’ associations with restrictive CC&R’s about house colors, landscaping requirements and the like.
Case in point, the vacant lot across from Bridgeside on Tilden and Fernside. Neighbors from the Fernside and Marina (sic) Homeowners Associations have been complaining about this for years (decades?). For whatever reason, the owner of the property is leaving it vacant — he has his reasons whether we agree with him or not. We may or may not like it, but we can’t force him to spend money when he’s not ready; certainly not on something he doesn’t want to spend it on. I’m sure he’d sell…for the right price.
The eyesore at the end of the block may be bothersome, but we need to consider the circumstances of the owner of the property and we certainly can’t force the owner into something she neither can afford nor desires.
Comment by Edmundo Delmundo — December 17, 2008 @ 10:42 am
Measure A is about density and traffic, and blight is about visual beauty, which not only raises property values but confers sanity. And when considering the latter, even with all the tri-toned Victorians, new upscale chains at Southshore and blue sky in the world we ain’t nothing but Camden, NJ, with those goddamn overhead wires.
Each of us has his or her pet peeve derelict property that smacks us in the face every time we walk out the door, but ALL of us meander down Alameda’s broad avenues with the nauseating migraine of a caged rat as the oppressive grid of Central Alameda’s shoddily sagging wires weighs upon us. I’m fairly certain there’s a relationship between the wires and our highs schoolers’ mediocre academic performance considering average household income versus other communities in the state. Maybe the Toyota dealership would have stayed had those Prius test drives occurred on more idyllic streets. Our Town is trying so hard to achieve a dignified human pedestrian scale, but it gets blown away by the wires. The Wires. THE WIRES.
Somebody please put those wires underground. The boxes can be encased in cement, I’ve seen the specs on the AP-nee AP&T website. As AD points out we’re forced to plant shrubs and beautiful trees are being grotesquely bisected every day to make way for the wires. All of these other nonsense issues pale in comparison. This is about civic sanity.
Comment by Matt Reid's doppelganger — December 17, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
2. Delmundo,
If HAB had any less authority or a narrower purview we wouldn’t exist. Even so, people come before us and feel messed with and micro managed sometimes.
A couple months ago, on a two to one vote ( which after the charter revisions in the last election is no longer possible) HAB approved a front porch addition on Bay street for which many neighbors would like to hang us. One woman who wanted us to regulate the landscaping as a condition of approval was even angry with the board member who opposed the project because we wouldn’t entertain her motion on landscape. But this is a complete digression.
If anybody wanted to lobby to change the purview of HAB or to rescind it’s charter I would not be the first to leap up in protest. I’m always willing to listen if anybody has a better mousetrap.
As I said before, I applied to HAB as an experiment in volunteerism without an interest to carry out any specific agenda, and that was based on stumbling onto a board opening for which I felt qualified.
At my first meeting I was one against four in a vote where I felt the rest of HAB were over reaching. The project on Ninth at Haight got built essentially as it came before us and it looks great. A pair of fully restored Vics. Those buildings were originally single family Queen Annes with what are called high basements, which were usually just six feet clearance and I think were originally build with dirt floors. That style basement is raw space but has windows.
The rehabs were ultimately approved by the Planning Board after a no vote from HAB was appealed to City Council who in turn, tried to hand it back to HAB for fine tuning, which I think was a totally erroneous move (election year). It never came back to HAB, but went to PB. I have never fully understood how or on what basis it went that route
I think some HAB members and members of Council were not happy about the full basements on these twin houses being turned into new living units, legal under Measure A.
In other words, I am alleging that members of HAB and Council didn’t want to approve based on added units, i.e. density. In the case of HAB that reason is outside our purview for not approving, but there were supposed some other technical design issues used to justified the no vote. That upset me and I spoke to Council asking that they approve, which they tried to kick it back to HAB based on the same erroneous design issues. I think it was bunk.
AD’s admonishment in a post yesterday which induced Lauren’s post today, makes me think of AD as the Mother Superior of Measure A, complete with a ruler ready to smack the hands of anybody who muddies the water on the sacred amendment. You are shameful Lauren. That’ll be five Hail Marys for you!
Finally: Edmundo, thanks for your blog post on George Jaber. The Chronicle obit blew me away. The patriarch of Encinal Hardware has passed on.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 17, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
OK, let’s suppose there’s no nefarious intent here, only nefarious grammar. Here’s how any normal reader would supply the missing content:
John Oldham: “The question I have about Measure A, and it is a real question, about the method of protecting housing stock.”
Wait, what is the question again? He must mean the real question is whether Measure A protects housing stock. OK…
“Can’t we as a community be more effective using zoning, setbacks, a historical renovation Ordinance and a blight ordinance as more effective tools.”
As more effective tools than what, for what? He must mean more effective tools than Measure A for protecting housing stock from blight. Hmmm…
“It is my belief that blight is a bigger issue than density.” Whoa there. Measure A limits density, most of us know, so is then John Oldham saying that because Measure A does not protect housing stock from blight, and density is not a big issue, then he must be saying Measure A is not doing anything too important. We are at a fork here. Option 1: John Oldham doesn’t understand measure A (which would be strange for an Alameda real estate blogger, but not impossible). Option 2: John Oldham is trying to make some kind of twisted argument against Measure A. Set judgement aside until clarification.
Then he goes on to talk about density when the navy was here, transit options, etc., stream of consciousness style…
Then to these already confusing paragraphs, Lauren Do offers the following commentary:
“Rather than provoke a discussion, instead there was just a flat out “no, only Measure A can preserve us” answer to this thoughtful question.” (Pause for heavy head scratching.) There “was”? Was there an event? A discussion? And the “flat out” answer was the answer to what question? That something else is more effective at protecting housing stock from blight than Measure A? But we who frequent this blog know that Lauren is very outspokenly against Measure A, and so she must have read the measure at least a few times and knows all too well that Measure A cannot protect housing stock from blight, because it is a density measure that has nothing to do with blight. Why is she acting like she doesn’t know any of that and is instead propagating an obviously mistaken understanding by John Oldham?
This is the point at which some of us begin to suspect nefarious intent, quite reasonably, given the above progression. And I am still not convinced there wasn’t any–but will leave it alone at this point. I submit the above analysis as the reason for my opinion.
Comment by AD — December 17, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Mark, I smack you on the head with the ruler for your persistent lack of understanding of my positions. The mother superior of Measure A?–there’s people out there laughing at you right now. My pet peeve is with people using underhanded means to get to their goals. Everybody talk straight, I’m happy. But I’ve been around too long to believe everybody does…and not long enough to get indifferent to it. Now five hail marys for you and straight to bed!
Comment by AD — December 17, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
I’m sure this particular argument against Measure A has come around many times before, just as every other possible argument for and against has most likely come around, and in fact, I remember hearing it not that long ago — that Measure A could be replaced by a combination of city ordinances. I had the same interpretation of the earlier post that AD had, and essentially the same reaction as well — I do not mind disagreement so much as I mind the “underhanded means”, which are often more obvious than proponents seem to realize.
In this instance, I think the intent is to misrepresent Measure A’s primary purpose, and then say in effect that it has failed in this regard, and that some alternative should be considered, such as “setbacks” or “historic preservation” or “zoning” in general — whatever that might mean.
I’m still confused by Lauren’s statement above as well, that the construction of “soviet style housing” is prevented by Measure A. Actually, the construction of multi-family dwellings is prevented by Measure A, without regard to appearance. Therefore, a zoning ordinance which deals solely with appearance would not have the same effect as Measure A and is not a viable alternative. Meaningful “flexibility” in this regard would be the choice whether to construct multi-family buildings are not, regardless of appearance — which in other words would be the end of Measure A.
Comment by dl morrison — December 17, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
I want to address a comment re blight in the earlier posting, which I noticed but didn’t acknowledge. The comment (#20) said that a city ordinance requiring minimal maintenance would be impossible in Alameda because, “It’s the Bay Area — SOMEBODY would stand up to howl for the rights of shiftless slobs to degrade their neighborhoods.”
I used to live in a very diverse neighborhood, in all respects, and I had a number of low-income neighbors, often people who were handicapped or elderly — one lady had been in the neighborhood for over 30 years. I would not want to see these people forced out of their homes so that someone could come in and prettify the building — I think that’s a matter of fundamental compassion for others, not some special shortcoming in the “left-coast” Bay Area.
People here talk a lot about community and I honestly thought they meant it — now I’m not sure what to think, at least with some folks’ comments. The community includes the rich and the poor alike, and personally I’d rather have both. I don’t want to live in some make-believe Victorian village for the wealthy, where everything is picture-perfect.
I know that the local resistance to development is sometimes interpreted as a hidden intent to shut out the poor — well, that’s not my intent by any means.
Comment by dl morrison — December 17, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
#2
Leave those goddamned wires where they are! Beware of the disambiguation!
Before any more wires are put underground, I demand proponents go before the historical advisory commissioners and explain why those butt-ugly foreign born, elite imported, huckster marketed, most inefficiently conceived limey houses this city reveres and hold in sacrosanct awe, yet at the same time the beautiful strands of energy, strung like veins of life, wrapping and bundling the city together along with the vertical fingers with crosses at the top which support those veins are so visually despised that they must be buried into oblivion.
Comment by John Donne — December 18, 2008 @ 9:37 am
7
I’ll plead guilty to having made the comment you reference, though in another thread.
To believe in basic upkeep of a building is not elitism, not anti-community, anti-poor, or anything at all like that. It’s a simple desire to keep a community attractive, and I’ll hazard a guess that is an attribute of Alameda that every participant on the blog values.
Comment by dave — December 18, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Perhaps the HAB should require that all modern plumbing and electricity be pulled out of the Victorians in order to maintain historical accuracy. While they’re at it, load up the streets with horse manure and cut back the average life span to 45 years. Why choose to cherry pick only certain aspects of history?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 18, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
#9: This isn’t a simple either-or, as I’m sure you realize. It’s a question of degree, of using a familiar word like blight in a reasonable fashion. I mean, if Alameda has “blight”, then what’s going on in West Oakland — nuclear winter?
When you fix up old homes, eyesores or not, you make them more expensive to live in. If landlords pass along capital costs, then rents go up. If an elderly homeowner can’t afford to maintain a home to the very high standards here, then he/she might be forced to sell. This displaces people — it’s called “gentrification” as I’m sure you also know. I’m saying that the community should approach this thoughtfully and with a sense of perspective.
I’ve lived in the East Bay for 20 years, and I always thought of Alameda as a city w/ many residents of modest means — something I always liked about it. Maybe I’m just in denial about what Alameda has become/is becoming — but when people make an issue over a few run-down homes, it comes across sounding like a snooty upper-middle-class complaint over something trivial, as with leaf blowers and utility wires — god knows how we’ll cope.
I know Berkeley, Oakland, Albany and El Cerrito pretty well, and of course they all have some very nice neighborhoods, but nothing like the block upon block of beautifully painted and landscaped and expensively maintained old homes here. Why isn’t that good enough?
Comment by dl morrison — December 18, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
A few helpful thesaurus entries:
Gentrification: improvement
Upper middle class: educated & successful
Comment by Roget — December 18, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
I would expect this level of ignorance in many places, but not here. I never thought I was that much of an idealist, but evidently so.
Comment by dl morrison — December 18, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
AD,
I will have to go to bed immediately because your mental/ verbal gymnastics to prove your point have exhausted me.
As if you didn’t know, HAB purview is quite clear and finite. It extends to what is left of our historic legacy as regards to building structures (exterior only) and not to plumbing or horse manure, at least the literal variety.
Comment by Mark Irons — December 18, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
13
To dismiss peoples’ hard work contributing to rising property values as “gentrification,” with a strongly implied negative connotation, is ignorant. It’s also petty, provincial and a few other unflattering things.
To dismiss as snooty & trivial the preferences of a group of people whose worst sin is being more successful than you is same.
This is probably a great surprise to you but a person who evinces pride in ownership can actually be as solid citizen as you. His/her efforts to improve both their own life and their community are actually just as commendable as your “idealism.”
Comment by Member of the UMC — December 18, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
I can see how yard and home maintenance would be problematic for people of any age who are disabled. However, for the rest of us what it mainly takes to keep our homes presentable is a small investment in paint and hand tools for gardening and the willingness to get off our couches and do some physical work (getting some needed and free exercise in the process). I’m not seeing how expecting people to keep their properties presentable is considered elitist.
Comment by Jill — December 18, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
Who is to sit in judgment of thy neighbors? “Presentable” or “acceptable” are very broad terms. I think that is DL’s point.
It was pointed out ad nauseum on the last thread that such a concept is far from the purpose of Measure A; and for “severe cases” Alameda already has codes which can be enforced that deal with what and where ’stuff’ is stored outside houses, and ‘conditions of blighting eye sores’ can be dealt with by existing code enforcement; but such existing codes don’t require adherence to lockstep Stepford aesthetics, or a tyranny of uniformity. Even in the manipulated framing of questions at SunCal’s “public meetings”, I think the most popular request was to maintain a variety of housing styles. Perhaps those responding to the questions were thinking about the blocks around their Alameda homes, and their appreciation of differences, not uniformity.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 19, 2008 @ 12:58 am
Thanks, dk.
#15: I should have just steered clear of this subject, as it’s difficult to discuss in this format, and perhaps in any format. Anyway, as I said above, it’s not a black and white issue, it’s a matter of degrees. In a city which has major problems with blight, it makes sense to focus on blight as a community problem, but in a city like this one, which has very little blight, then it’s no longer a community problem so much as an effort at exclusion.
I do not believe for a second that the elimination of a few rundown homes here and there will have any impact on the very high property values here, and I’d be surprised if anyone believes that, so if the real issue is not property values, then what is it?
I’d like to hear a specific answer to that. Please tell me how a rundown house on your block or the next block or across the island is going to affect your property values.
Comment by dl morrison — December 19, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
And if I concern myself w/ the interests of people who are less well-off, then why is that “petty and provincial”? I’m not offended actually, I’m just curious. Isn’t narrow-minded defense of your own rights at the expense of others more likely to be petty and provincial? That was always my take on it anyway.
Comment by dl morrison — December 19, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Letting your house deteriorate into an eyesore that impacts your neighbors is a “narrow minded defense of your own rights at the expense of others.”
Concerning yourself with people who are hungry or homeless is admirable. Such efforts on behalf of property owners are silly. Property ownership in the Bay Area means that a person is not poor, ipso facto. Many owners of eyesore have gotten a generation’s worth or Prop 13 and massive appreciation to boot. Tell me again how these downtrodden folks deserve our principled concern?
And if you honestly believe that an eyesore nearby doesn’t impact a property’s value, perhaps naive is a better adjective than petty or provincial.
Comment by Member of the UMC — December 19, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
I understand that people are concerned about property values. What I don’t like is the whole “Mine! Mine! Mine!” self-righteous approach to the subject. God forbid that you should lose anything for the sake of anyone else. You haven’t answered my question here — how much do you think you’re actually losing? Give me an example of a rundown house that’s causing you to lose money.
The reality here is pretty simple — the factors affecting the RE market in an upscale place like Alameda are much more likely to be regional than local. The city’s proximity to SF, its good schools and nice old fashioned ambiance will always be strong pluses — and a few “less wealthy” neighborhoods or homes just aren’t going to change that. As the market as a whole comes down then Alameda will drop too.
Are you blaming the drop in value on your neighbors, is that it? If you misjudged the market, then that’s your fault.
Comment by dl morrison — December 19, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
Wealth is shrinking. Many property owners no longer have the equity in their homes to get home improvement loans. Degradation of the housing and commercial stock is a real concern. The more modest neighborhoods are especially vulnerable. I am concerned that we will be seeing more properties that are boarded up or in decline. Perhaps it is time for the city to waive permit fees to encourage needed repairs?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 19, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
Alameda is just an old community, and old homes like this are difficult to keep up. It’s no coincidence that other nearby neighborhoods from a similar period also tend to have rundown homes — a few or a lot. If this were a “post-war” community, or a brand new development, I guess that would be less likely, then again the inherent value of these vintage homes is so much greater.
Comment by dl morrison — December 19, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
Another perspective-
Alameda seems to have made a conscious decision for inclusionary housing -(housing for low, and very low income) to be integrated with standard ‘market rate’ housing. The effort was to not have “the poor side of town”, or at least to minimize the affects of rich and poorer areas. .
This view struck a similar chord as our school systems have moved for “main-streaming” children with physical or learning disabilities into our regular academic environments. When I was a kid there were special schools for special needs kids (or “other-needs” kids). In some ways I can see an economic advantage to having the ’special schools’ – isolating these kids from the rest of their peers, and I guess we “normal” kids were spared from witnessing those who were disadvantaged in other ways, and we would make jokes about those ‘on the short bus’. Today with special ed being more main-streamed the effort is to not isolate kids, to recognize ‘they’ are part of ‘us’, and ought not be shunned excluded or disrespected. As a more ‘whole’ community the effort is to accept, understand, share, move forward together – however you want to phrase it.
I think we are a better community and society for these efforts, and I do see a parallel with the intermix of homes.
With that inclusionary city goal for housing we may all need to be more mindful that some of our personal preferences, whether aesthetic values, landscape preferences, are not universal, nor attainable by all even when the preferences are shared.
Also in Alameda there was (does it still exist?) a program where once or twice yearly RE groups would cooperate to ‘fix-up’ the exterior of a home, usually by painting it with donated time and materials. When small groups work together, larger groups can benefit. Maybe if you don’t like what you see, you can organize, or work to change it, not by complaining, but by sharing the load of improvement, especially if you feel a personal affect from the way it is now.
Comment by David Kirwin — December 20, 2008 @ 5:02 pm